This was actually posted a couple of days ago but it wasn't on the freaking front page for some reason.

Quote:

1. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its agriculture and/or food safety policy in the United States.

The area of agriculture was the most requested area from membership this year. This resolution offers a way to debate both agricultural policy and the food safety elements of FDA and other governmental actions. The resolution would allow for debate on GMOs, agricultural price supports, use of crops for fuels, use of pesticides/herbicides, food labeling, and of course food safety issues, just to name a few. This resolution allows a great deal of case options and the particular wording will make for great debate.

2. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform its laws governing the rights of employers, employees, and/or labor organizations.

This is a good solid resolution area that is fresh. It allows for both private industry as well as government employment to be debated. It is relevant to current events such as the minimum wage debate, the unionization of college sports, prevailing wage rules/Davis-Bacon procedures for federal contracts, right to work laws, right to form unions, changes to union certification procedures, and union political involvement, just to name a few areas. There is plenty of ground for creative cases to solve for this very real issue in our culture today.

3. Resolved: The United States federal government should substantially reform one or more of its means-tested benefits programs.

This resolution is very relevant and culturally important. By using the phrase “means-tested benefits programs” the resolution is clear that we are focusing on the federal government programs that test income. Dealing with all of poverty would probably have been too broad. Some examples of case ideas would be food stamps, housing assistance, AFDC, Medicaid, healthcare for the poor, college education for the poor, retirement for the poor, etc. The wording was specifically crafted to also allow for debate regarding non US citizens. The nondirectional nature of this resolution does not force the affirmative into just increasing governmental programs. There are many creative options for solving this real world problem that can be debated under this resolution.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum